"Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote
>
> Added to TODO list.
>
> > One thing we tried in February was padding out the statically defined
> > locks with dummy lock definitions in the enum. This has the effect of
> > ensuring that the most contested locks are very definitely in their own
> > cache line and not shared with others.
> > That showed a noticeable improvement in performance, probably because it
> > costs very little to implement, even if the code would require some
> > explanatory documentation.
> >
Has this been done? See the LWLOCK_PADDED_SIZE macro in code.
Regards,
Qingqing